Authorities allege Randall Hamblen ignited an unknown substance 12 days after his divorce became final, injuring himself and another man.

GARLAND COUNTY, Ark. — An Arkansas man accused of repeatedly threatening his estranged wife is facing arson and other charges after authorities said he went to the home they once shared, ignited an unidentified substance and caused an explosion that burned him and another man.

Randall Hamblen, 50, was charged with arson, second-degree battery, aggravated assault and violating a protective order, according to Garland County jail information cited in published reports. He was being held on a $100,000 bond when the charges were reported in June. The May 20 blast occurred 12 days after Hamblen’s divorce was finalized and followed months of alleged threats involving the house, court records cited by news organizations show. The allegations have not been proven in court, and available reports did not identify an attorney who could comment for Hamblen.

According to a probable cause affidavit obtained by the Hot Springs Sentinel Record and described by several news outlets, Hamblen arrived at the Tallentwood Place residence in a gold 2003 Dodge 1500 pickup. The property had previously been shared by Hamblen and his former wife. Authorities have not publicly released a full account of why he went there that day, what he carried with him or whether anyone at the residence expected him. The affidavit, as reported, focuses on his encounter with another man who answered the door.

Hamblen allegedly greeted the man by saying, “Oh good, you’re here. Get the dogs out of the house.” The statement, if accurately recorded, suggested that Hamblen anticipated something dangerous, but the affidavit excerpts reported by news organizations do not explain what he intended or whether he gave any additional warning. The man left through a back door and walked around the residence toward the carport, where Hamblen and the pickup were located. No public report has identified the man or explained his relationship to the property’s residents.

At the carport, Hamblen allegedly leaned over and ignited something. The affidavit described a “boom” followed by flames, according to the reports. Both Hamblen and the other man suffered burns. Authorities have not disclosed the nature or severity of their injuries, whether either man required prolonged hospitalization or whether either had recovered. They also have not identified the material that was ignited, explained how the fire spread or said whether investigators recovered a device or container from the scene.

Those unanswered questions are significant because the public description of the event remains limited to excerpts from the affidavit and jail records. An explosion can result from several different circumstances, but officials have not provided enough verified information to determine the source in this case. Available reporting does not establish whether investigators believe the blast was caused by an improvised device, a flammable liquid, gas or another substance. It also does not state how much damage the house or nearby property sustained.

The investigation did not begin with the May incident alone. Authorities examining Hamblen’s history with the property reportedly reviewed a protective order issued during the couple’s separation. The order, served the previous fall, barred him from contacting his then-estranged wife and from going to the Tallentwood Place residence, according to accounts of the court documents. His former wife had alleged that his drinking had increased and that he threatened to burn the house if she changed its locks. Those statements remain allegations contained in the reported court record.

Messages attributed to Hamblen also became part of the account presented by authorities. On Oct. 19, 2025, he allegedly described the prospect of divorce as “mutually assured destruction” and warned that he was close to revealing a side of himself he did not want others to see. Reports said the threatening communications continued over several months. He allegedly referred to taking what the couple had built and said they would “burn together.” The wording is relevant because investigators have linked the earlier threats to the later fire, but prosecutors would still have to establish the messages’ authenticity, context and legal significance in court.

The divorce was finalized May 8, according to the reported affidavit, and the explosion followed on May 20. That sequence places the alleged incident shortly after the formal end of the marriage but months after the protective order was issued. Authorities have not publicly said whether Hamblen had been accused of violating the order before May 20, whether the former couple had continuing disputes over the home or whether any property issues remained unresolved after the divorce.

It also remains unclear whether Hamblen’s former wife was at the house when the explosion occurred. Early reports specifically noted that authorities had not established her location in the publicly available account. No report reviewed for this article said she was injured. Officials have not released a complete list of people who were present, identified witnesses beyond the injured man or described whether neighbors saw or heard the blast. The reported instruction to remove the dogs indicates animals were in or near the residence, but their condition was not disclosed.

The four charges address different parts of the conduct alleged by investigators. The arson count concerns the claimed intentional burning, while the battery allegation is tied to physical injury and the aggravated assault charge addresses conduct authorities say created a substantial danger. The protective-order count concerns Hamblen’s alleged presence at a place he had been ordered to avoid. The precise statutory subsections, felony classifications and maximum penalties were not included in the available reports, and no conclusion about guilt can be drawn from the filing of charges.

A probable cause affidavit is used to explain why officers believe an arrest or charge is justified. It presents the authorities’ version of events at an early stage and is not a finding by a jury or judge that the accused committed the offenses. Prosecutors may later amend charges, add evidence or decline to pursue parts of a case. A defendant may challenge the admissibility and meaning of statements, physical evidence and witness accounts. No plea, trial date or final court disposition was identified in the material available for this report.

The Garland County Circuit Clerk maintains criminal, civil and domestic-relations records, but a complete case file was not available through the sources reviewed. As a result, several basic matters remain unresolved publicly, including the exact cause of the blast, the extent of the injuries, the amount of property damage and the former wife’s location at the time. Hamblen remained accused, not convicted, in the latest reporting reviewed. His next confirmed court proceeding had not been publicly identified.

Author note: Last updated July 13, 2026.